Albert C. (Bert) CADIEU

CADIEU, Albert C. (Bert)

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Meadow Lake (Saskatchewan)
Birth Date
June 28, 1903
Deceased Date
October 31, 1990
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Cadieu
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=5477b234-7b2d-4a38-9cd9-31b2826497c8&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
contractor, farmer, rancher

Parliamentary Career

March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Meadow Lake (Saskatchewan)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
PC
  Meadow Lake (Saskatchewan)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
PC
  Meadow Lake (Saskatchewan)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
PC
  Meadow Lake (Saskatchewan)
June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
PC
  Meadow Lake (Saskatchewan)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
PC
  Meadow Lake (Saskatchewan)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2 of 35)


June 9, 1977

Mr. Bert Cadieu (Meadow Lake):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some remarks on this bill. Unfortunately I was absent from the committee and therefore not able to take the active part I would like to have taken when the bill was at committee stage. However, I did follow it very closely.

While in my constituency I was unable to find anyone in support of this bill. A few said that, no matter what they thought, it would come and they would have to accept it. However, no one stated that we should be accepting it at this time, jumping the gun before the country is ready for it.

June 9, 1977

This metric legislation which has been before the House for some time will affect the western grain farmer to the greatest extent. The Metric Commission instructed the grain trade to convert to the metric system as of February 1 of this year. However, this has been delayed for some time because the bill is not yet through the Houses

Members can find ammunition with regard to this bill. All they have to do is read Qpen Forum or the Western Producer to see where westerners stand on this matter. I do not know why the minister and the government want to railroad this through the House.

In effect, the main change for farmers will be that his acres will be no more. They will be replaced by hectares, 2.2 acres, while the buying of grain from the farmer will be in tonnes, which is about 2,200 pounds. From the time the bill has been in committee, the official opposition have been pointing out the unfairness of trying to railroad this bill through the House at this time. We attempted to stop the bill since it would appear to be of little use to those who deal with country elevators. The system will cause nothing but confusion to' the farmer who, of all segments of the grain trade, is least able to cope with it.

Furthermore, the United States is not likely to convert to hectares or tonnes for a considerable time, so we shall be out of step when it comes to farm machinery, herbicides and fertilizer. The prime mover in this chain seems to have been the Metric Commission, followed by the Wheat Board and the Grain Commissioners; the various grain handling companies have acquiesced.

The railways will still ship in bushels as they have no intention of changing over until 1981.

The Wheat Board has given as its reason for the changeover that it will save $1,000,000 in computations.

The Conservatives have asked that the acre be retained and that the farmer sell grain at the country elevator at the bushel measure until we standardize with the United States. The Metric Commission, however, with the Wheat Board agreeing, say this will not be as tidy a system and that it is necessary to introduce the metric system for grain across the board.

The Liberal members of the committee supported the changes aggressively but it is interesting to note that this change from acres and bushels only affects the designated Wheat Board area, while the rest of Canada will not likely face any changes for some years so far as acres to hectares is concerned.

I am rather suspicious that the government instituted it in the Wheat Board area to see how it will be accepted. We saw this going on at the committee stage. When I look at the bill and think of the effect it will have on all classes of people, I am sure those who have been supporting it have not been reading their mail or taking note of what has been going on at home.

Like my hon. friend from Churchill I also represent a northern riding and I have no doubt as to how the bill will be accepted in the north. It will not be well received. The

Metric System

fishermen will certainly be against it, too. This is something which the government cannot railroad through the House. I am reminded of an elderly woman I heard from and who was downright disgusted with the whole thing. She was just about heartbroken. This is about the truest way in which I can explain it. She said, "We will never know how much our grandchildren weighed, how tall they were."

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   STATUTE LAW (METRIC CONVERSION) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 AMENDMENTS TO WHEAT BOARD ACT TO FACILITATE CONVERSION TO METRIC SYSTEM
Full View Permalink

June 9, 1977

Mr. Cadieu:

I enjoyed the speech made tonight by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). His comments were so close to public opinion with respect to their needs when marketing and making their purchases. Such confusion I have never heard of, and I cannot understand it for the life of me. I congratulate the members on this side for the wonderful speeches they have made on the bill, and I congratulate the hon. member for Qu'appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) on his amendment. He has offered the government a way of getting out of the mess into which it has put us. The government should strongly consider withdrawing this bill altogether at this time and bringing it back again when the time is right, which is likely to be some while to come.

If I had received any encouragement from my constituents to accept this bill, Mr. Speaker, I would have a different view of it. I believe in advancement and in promotion, but I cannot understand what the government is trying to do at this time. 1 have received no encouragement regarding this bill from any segment of the population in my riding. This is why the minister should consider withdrawing this ridiculous bill.

I used to hear some of the people from European countries in my constituency saying that this bill would be all right, but even they do not want it now. They have learned the system we use and are backing away from this bill. They have been so long away from the metric system which is used in Europe that they are not so happy about adopting it again. I have not found one person who is really happy with it. They have changed their minds and I should like to see the government change its mind, instead of trying to railroad this bill through.

I know the confusion that exists about it. I was in my constituency last week and spoke to people who will be affected by this bill, the various measurements for fertilizers, herbicides and so on, hectares and tonnes and all the rest of it. The whole thing is a mess. The government should listen to the enlightened advice given it by the official opposition regarding what the bill means to the country as a whole. It is not too late to accept this amendment and to get down to some common sense thinking. May I call it 10.30, Mr. Speaker?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   STATUTE LAW (METRIC CONVERSION) AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 AMENDMENTS TO WHEAT BOARD ACT TO FACILITATE CONVERSION TO METRIC SYSTEM
Full View Permalink

January 25, 1977

Has compensation been paid to any individual, group, association or the Government of Saskatchewan by the Department of National Defence for the lease of land for the Primrose Lake bombing range in Northwestern Saskatchewan and, if so (a) on what date (b) to whom and by what method (c) how much?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Full View Permalink

December 7, 1976

Mr. Cadieu:

Yes, he has been in the air too much- $740,000 worth. Western Canada is looking for a transportation policy from this minister which will straighten out the present mess. Year after year it is getting worse. There is talk of the CNR building rail lines in other countries. They should first look after Canada.

I want to deal briefly with agriculture. There is a big mess here, as well. The minister has brought forward a stabilization bill. Our party has always been in favour of a sound policy for the producer. Therefore, stabilization is very necessary. There are 30,000 permit-book holders under the Canadian Wheat Board who are not in the stabilization plan. They do not know where they are going. We also have Bill C-2, advance payments on farm stored grain. Many in this House will recall that the Diefenbaker government brought in a plan for farm-stored grain. It was put into effect overnight. The plan worked very well. The Liberals, who at that time were on this side of the chamber, said that it would not work and the members of the Wheat Board would quit. I never heard of any quitting. The plan carried on for years.

Restraint of Government Expenditures

We are certainly not opposing this new stabilization bill. However, when we see what it will cost the producers, we can see what the government is aiming at. Thousands more civil servants will be required to administer the plan. With the Diefenbaker plan, the farmer went to the elevator, swore an affidavit as to the amount of grain he had on hand, and went to the bank to get his cheque. It was a good plan and there was very little discrimination. We are hoping that this new plan will be workable. However, we cannot see the need for the extra cost that will be involved. The previous plan worked very well and there is no reason why it could not, again, be followed for payments on farm-stored grain.

Many farmers in my constituency are in a difficult situation. They were misled by this government to go into livestock. The farmers take a dollar less for their wheat, a dollar less for their barley, while everything is increasing in price-some of it by leaps and bounds. A few years ago the farmers were encouraged to go into livestock even though many of them were getting along very well growing grain. Today, many young people are being put out of business. Young farmers in my part of the country are discouraged. A few years ago, calves were selling as high as 72 cents a pound. The farmers borrowed money from the bank for cows that should have been canner cows. They were being paid $500 to $700 to raise calves because the government was saying, "go into beef'.

The government had better come forward soon with some kind of plan. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is in the chamber. For a year and a half he has been saying that he will come out with a plan, but the farmers are still waiting. The government must come forward with a plan to help not only western farmers but farmers in eastern Canada as well. I understand that they, too, are in a tough situation with regard to livestock.

My constituency extends as far north as the Northwest Territories. Therefore, I want to deal briefly with some of the problems being faced today by the people in the north. There are so many civil servants in the north, both federal and provincial, that they are tripping over each other. It appears as though the more people you have under you, the more important you are. The number of civil servants keeps increasing, but not the workload. There is a lot of unemployment in northern Canada, northern Saskatchewan in particular, that should not be. There should be some form of development which would put these people to work. The resources are there and the people are willing to work. Why not create employment, rather than have these people on welfare? I am sure they would much rather work.

Many people in my constituency are 25 and 30 years old and know no other way of life than welfare. If roads, railroads, and so on, were developed, many of these people could obtain employment. Instead, we sit here wasting time debating a bill that should never have come before the House at this time. We should have proceeded with the rest of our work in parliament. I am sure that this country is looking to parliament to get down to business and to do something about the mess into which the government has got the country.

Restraint of Government Expenditures

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES RESTRAINT ACT
Full View Permalink

December 7, 1976

Mr. Bert Cadieu (Meadow Lake):

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-19. After listening to the news and examining this bill, one is led to

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]

wonder where the country is going. The Auditor General, in his report, gave us an inkling of what is happening in parliament. One sees a government opposite which will not heed the Auditor General's report. This government has possibly led the country into the worst mess we have seen in our time. Since the Auditor General recommended the appointment of an overseer of government spending, one cannot understand why the government should try to change his suggestion by setting up another royal commission. This government talks about restraint, Mr. Speaker, but it has got into a mess in pretty well all departments of government and is guilty of some of the most wasteful and corrupt expenditures we have heard of in our time.

In debating Bill C-19 one can talk of almost all departments of government. The Auditor General, after all, was appointed to report what he finds going on in the government. Since the government has failed to heed his recommendations, I think it only proper that we should deal with some of the matters he raised when we debate this bill. Consider how much money this government has wasted all through the years by setting up various royal commissions. Possibly the government set up its latest royal commission because it does not want the public to know all the truth just yet. Possibly in a couple of years, when present events will be behind us, it will reveal some of the things which have taken place.

I was thinking the other day of what the Liberal party had said about the Diefenbaker buck, or the "Diefen-dollar" as they called it, when the Conservative government some years ago devalued our dollar. I was wondering what they will say about the Trudeau buck. How will it look? Will the party opposite be ashamed of it?

According to news one hears, transportation in this country is in a mess. News stories I heard last night show that there is a transportation mess on the Pacific coast. We have heard maritime members speaking of what is happening in the maritimes, and westerners know what is happening in western Canada with regard to the user-pay concept of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). Although I, personally, am not familiar with "at and east" rates, I know from listening to colleagues on my side of the difficult position in which the removal of these rates will place the maritime provinces and other parts of Canada. One is certainly forced to wonder what the effect will be in central and western Canada. We all heard last night what is happening on the Pacific coast and how that part of the country is reacting to the minister's user-pay concept. As well, recent revelations of the minister's own spending have not gone over well in the part of the country from which I come.

One hears much talk of rail operations. The minister has hesitated to state his position clearly on the Crow rates, for example. Western Canada would like to know where the minister stands on those rates. He must stop beating around the bush and tell us, because we very much want to know. One hears what has been happening at Mirabel and Pickering airports, and then one sees what is happening in central Canada and in the area I represent. I have attended, I do not know how many meetings to do with rail line abandonment. I

December 7, 1976

realize that the government has set up a commission to study the question, but it has no clear-cut policy.

Canadian National Railways advertises its rail passenger service. Mr. Speaker, in my area there is no rail passenger service-at least, there is no service at a convenient time. If there is such a passenger service, it is provided at the most outlandish hours when nobody can use it. Considering the high cost of energy and that rail lines have already been put down, I see no reason for not providing rail passenger service between places like Prince Albert, North Battleford and Edmonton. At present, no rail passenger service at all is provided to those areas. This makes one wonder if the government is serious when it says that it wishes to do something about passenger service.

Even on the freight haul service the trucks have pretty well taken over. One wonders why this has come about, because it is much more costly to build and maintain highways than to keep the present railbeds in proper shape. The way energy has increased in price, we should make more use of the railbeds. All across Canada the rail lines are becoming overgrown with grass and weeds. We hear a lot of talk about unemployment. I agree that there are some lines that could be abandoned. A lot of them should not have been put there in the first place. Railway companies were able to obtain charters which they should not have been able to get. A private railway company should not have been given a charter to build a line running parallel with another line. We all know the blunders that have been made. If we followed the user-pay concept, maybe all this would work out. Possibly we should do something about it. The Minister of Transport should come down to earth and give us an inkling as to where he is headed with his transport policy.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES RESTRAINT ACT
Full View Permalink